From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21867 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2011 09:25:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 21835 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jun 2011 09:25:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:25:17 +0000 Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so5284571wwf.8 for ; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 02:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.197.21 with SMTP id ei21mr6947776wbb.107.1306920316321; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 02:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from richards-thinkpad (gbibp9ph1--blueice2n1.emea.ibm.com [195.212.29.75]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p21sm606666wbh.23.2011.06.01.02.25.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 01 Jun 2011 02:25:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Sandiford To: Michael Matz Mail-Followup-To: Michael Matz ,gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@linaro.org Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: RFC: explicitely mark out-of-scope deaths References: Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 09:25:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Michael Matz's message of "Thu, 26 May 2011 15:43:45 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-06/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 Michael Matz writes: > Stores are better than builtin functions here, so as to not artificially > take addresses of the decls in question. For the record, you wouldn't need to take the address if you had an internal function (internal-fn.def) of the form: MEM_REF [] = internal_fn_that_returns_unknown_data (); This was one of the reasons for adding internal functions, and we use a similar technique for the interleaved load/stores. Not an argument in favour of using calls. There are probably other reasons to prefer your representation. It just seemed that, whatever the arguments against using calls are, taking the address doesn't need to be one of them. Richard